Jump to content

Schwarzenegger: La Olympic Bid "has It All"


ejaycat

Recommended Posts

Ehhhh!

Didn't like the video. It just too glitzy in the wrong kinda way and ALL over the place. It doesn't tell me why LA should have it again. If anything, it has an underlying message of rage and desperation in it.

Well the goal was to somehow make the Olympics "hip" for the 18-34 year-old demographic, because apparently, the Olympics have been losing the interest of that age group (at least in the US). I can believe it. There are far more sports that young people are into that are not on the Olympic program, plus there are many other forms of entertainment that young people are into. Don't think the average young adult is all that into shotput and hammer throwing.

I will admit, it is a slick video, at least in my opinion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...
  • Replies 89
  • Created
  • Last Reply

California Assembly OKs Olympic spending

From the Sacramento Bee:

By Jim Sanders - Bee Capitol Bureau

March 29, 2007

The Assembly passed legislation Thursday designed to bolster Los Angeles' bid to host the 2016 Olympic Games.

The measure, Assembly Bill 300, passed by a vote of 65-0.

The bill would allow Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger to commit the state to limited financial liability if a Los Angeles Olympics ran a huge deficit.

Under AB 300, the state would agree to pay up to $250 million if the Olympics' debt could not be covered by event revenues, insurance policies or other means.

Los Angeles and Chicago are vying for the right to host the 2016 summer games.

If Los Angeles hosts the Olympics, events are expected to be held in Los Angeles, San Francisco, San Diego, Anaheim, Arcadia, Pasadena, Monterey Park and various other cities.

AB 300 now goes to the Senate. It would take effect immediately if it passes both houses by a two-thirds margin and is signed by Schwarzenegger.

Assemblywoman Karen Bass, a Los Angeles Democrat who presented the bill Thursday, said the governor has agreed to sign the measure.

Assembly OKs Olympic spending

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ohhhhhhh - this is going to be close.

Los Angeles has essentially given everything the USOC/IOC wants from the money standpoint, one of the few previous Olympic hosts who actually held on to their legacies and is safe. Chicago offers a "New Barcelona" as I call it with exciting venues, a new frontier so to speak and retribution for 1904.

Either way, I am a happy camper. B)

Although if Chicago gets it I will be turning a cartwheel in my backyard. :P

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Either way, I am a happy camper. B)

Although if Chicago gets it I will be turning a cartwheel in my backyard. :P

Don't forget that there's the little issue of the international bidding campaign for the Games - Tokyo, Madrid, Rome, Rio, Dehli, Prague, etc... will pose a far greater challenge to the US candidate than Chicago and Los Angeles did to each other.

Whoever wins the US campaign won't neccessarily win the 2016 Games - the battle doesn't stop there - in fact it would only have just begun.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Don't forget that there's the little issue of the international bidding campaign for the Games - Tokyo, Madrid, Rome, Rio, Dehli, Prague, etc... will pose a far greater challenge to the US candidate than Chicago and Los Angeles did to each other.

Whoever wins the US campaign won't neccessarily win the 2016 Games - the battle doesn't stop there - in fact it would only have just begun.

Uhmmm, yeah -- except the USOC did a little homework, and based on its informal survey, (CHicago) is definitely a front-runner. Do you think they'd go ahead without that study in its backpocket? All the others will have bigger problems -- like Tokyo and ROme having bid before. Rome, Prague, Madrid -- kinda idiotic cities knowing that 2016 has a minus 30% chance of returning to Europe when there are equally solid bids outside. A lot of money will be thrown away in pursuit of 2016.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I still think it's going to be a close call between LA and Chicago :

  • Chicago and LA have the same financial guarentee ($500M) but I think given the fact that the amount of construction work needed in Chicago is far greater than in LA, I would feel more confortable with LA guarantee at that point.
  • Chicago has a more compact plan than LA and won't face the third time host question so it would probably be easier to sell on the international stage.
  • on the other hand, the legacy issue is not that huge of an asset for Chicago: whether the IOC likes the temporary stadium issue remains to be seen (although I agree it's the only option that makes sense); Chicago legacy is basically one Olympic Village plus a swimming pool which was precisely the kind of legacy proposed by Paris 2012 and that was labelled as "not much of a legacy" by a lot of media, including ATR... On the other hand, LA could do a LA 84 legacy again: not a very great legacy in terms of sporting venues but a foundation, the AAFLA, that is still, from my point of view, one of the greatest legacy ever produced by an organizing committee.

So, I think that Chicago has a slight edge (because of the 3rd time host thing) but I could see a close vote.

Then, on the international stage, I think the US bid will definitely be one of the top three but is by no mean a shoe-in :

  • Tokyo has a very strong bid (everything within a 10-km radius from the Olympic Village, a brand new Olympic Stadium); the main problems for Tokoyo will be public support and PC 2014 (if PC is elected).
  • although I agree that after London a European Games in 2016 is unlikely, one cannot rule out Roma. What we are seeing so far is very promising (with Rome hosting the 2009 FINA World Champs, most of the venues will be ready) and Italians are very powerful within the IOC.
  • I don't think both Tokyo and Rome having hosted before will be much of an issue (the US has hosted 2 summer games since Tokyo and Rome mast played host).

Anyhow, it's going to be interesting.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Don't forget that there's the little issue of the international bidding campaign for the Games - Tokyo, Madrid, Rome, Rio, Dehli, Prague, etc... will pose a far greater challenge to the US candidate than Chicago and Los Angeles did to each other.

Whoever wins the US campaign won't neccessarily win the 2016 Games - the battle doesn't stop there - in fact it would only have just begun.

Yes I know. I'm only concentrating on the USOC bid right now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Doesn't L.A. only have a $250 million guarantee, Jeremie? According to Gamesbids.com anyway.

http://www.gamesbids.com/cgi-bin/news/view...p;id=1175369723

So Chicago has twice as much financial guarantee.

Los Angeles has a $500 million guarantee. That article you posted talks about the City of Los Angeles underwriting $250 million, but it was announced earlier that the State of California will also underwrite $250 million. In fact the article even mentions that the city amount is added to what the state assembly has adopted.

But here's the other article, posted on Gamesbids, even.

http://www.gamesbids.com/cgi-bin/news/view...p;id=1175270701

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Those financial guarantees are really the US answer to other countires' having their federal gov'ts be responsible for all Games spending. For a US-based Games today, in the early 21st Century, to lose money (which is when those financial guarantees would kick in) would as certain as a Winter Games coming to Fiji or Tahiti. So, those financial guarantees are really a non-issue; it just completes the bid.

I'm calling it: Chicago - 8/7 votes; LA - 3/4 votes. Not even close.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[*]I don't think both Tokyo and Rome having hosted before will be much of an issue (the US has hosted 2 summer games since Tokyo and Rome mast played host).

Anyhow, it's going to be interesting.

It is -- whether the US submits LA (therefore in Tokyo and Rome's favor) or Chicago (in which case, it favors Chicago).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


×
×
  • Create New...